Lord v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 26 March 1970
• Docket Number: AUTO-OWNERS,No. 2,Docket No. 7200,2
• Citation: 22 Mich.App. 669,177 N.W.2d 653
• Parties: Robert LORD and Beverly Lord, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 653

177 N.W.2d 653

22 Mich.App. 669

Robert LORD and Beverly Lord, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 7200.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 2.

March 26, 1970.

Released for Publication June 26, 1970.

Thomas D. Rinehart, Mr. Clemens, for appellant.

Daniel S. Goldsmith, Goldsmith, Yaker & Goldsmith, Detroit, for appellees.

Before FITZGERALD, P.J., and BRONSON and T. M. BURNS, JJ.

BRONSON, Judge.

On April 16, 1967, Robert Lord's car was struck by a vehicle owned and driven by Jesse Lee Hodges. Hodges alleged that his vehicle was struck by an unidentified hit-and-run vehicle and forced into Robert Lord.

Robert Lord brought suit against Jesse Lee Hodges and James Hare as director of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund. Plaintiff also filed a claim for arbitration against his own auto insurance company, Auto-Owners Insurance Company, under his uninsured motorists coverage. Defendant Auto-Owners Insurance Company declined to arbitrate the matter on the ground that it was not within the scope of the uninsured motorists coverage as contained in the policy. The reason, defendant claimed, was that the requirement of 'physical contact' between the hit-and-run vehicle and the insured was a condition precedent to arbitration and coverage.

Plaintiff sought declaratory judgment in the Macomb County Circuit Court against Auto-Owners alleging that coverage did apply. The trial court held that the policy requirement of 'physical contact' was met and that coverage did apply under the facts as alleged by plaintiff. Defendant, Auto-Owners Insurance Company, appeals pursuant to GCR 1963, 806.1.

The insurance policy written between Auto-Owners Insurance Company, and Robert Lord states, in part:

'D. 'UNINSURED AUTOMOBILE'

shall mean:

'(2) a hit-and-run automobile as defined;

'E. 'HIT-AND-RUN AUTOMOBILE'

shall mean an automobile which causes bodily injury to an assured arising out of physical contact of such automobile with the assured or with an automobile which the assured is in, upon, entering or alighting from at the time of the accident * * *'.

When asked to construe the provisions of an insurance contract written by the insured, this Court will read the policy in such a manner as favors coverage for the insured. Squires v. Hayes (1968), 13 Mich.App. 449, 164 N.W.2d 565; Farm Bureau Insurance Company of Michigan v. Pedlow (1966), 3 Mich.App. 478, 142 N.W.2d 877; Hoehner v. Western Casualty & Surety Company (1967), 8 Mich.App. 708, 155 N.W.2d 231; Michigan Mutual Liability Company v. Karsten (1968), 13 Mich.App. 46, 163 N.W.2d 670.

The California Court of Appeals in the case of Inter-Insurance Exchange of the Automobile Club of Southern California v. Lopez (1965), 238 Cal.App.2d 441, 47 Cal.Rptr. 834, found that the requirement of 'physical contact' embodied in an insurance contract serves a legitimate purpose. That purpose is to reduce the possibility that a motorist who loses control of a vehicle through his own...